Photo: ©ThinkStock.

“… clinical studies have not only failed to conclusively demonstrate the expected benefits, but have also suggested the possibility of harm from the starches.”

IN 1831 during the European cholera epidemic, Latta1  was the first to report on a patient who was successfully resuscitated with intravenous fluids. He injected 60 ounces of warm saline intravenously to a pulseless cholera patient. According to the author’s report, on receiving the fluid resuscitation, every symptom of cholera was removed. About 80 yr later, fluid resuscitation with colloids was introduced to clinical medicine for treatment of severe hemorrhage. In his case series report published in JAMA in 1915, Hogan2  noted that although salt solutions give a temporary rise in blood pressure (and improvement in the general symptoms resulting from hemorrhage), he could obtain a more permanent rise with gelatin, a hydrophilic colloidal solution. In the same report, Dr. Hogan included the caveat that resuscitation with colloids is insufficient to treat toxemic shock despite the initial effects of colloid resuscitation on blood pressure. This differential effect on outcome of patients presenting with hemorrhagic and septic shock should be kept in mind when interpreting the results from current trials.

Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are the most commonly used colloids in many parts of the world;3 however, recent studies suggest that HES may be associated with worse outcomes, when given for fluid resuscitation to patients with sepsis.4,5  Outcome data on the topic of colloid resuscitation are sparse, which is probably why it still raises strong opinions from key opinion leaders in the field.

In this issue of Anesthesiology, two groups of researchers provide important new data on the safety and potential benefits of modern 6% HES. Silva et al.6 show in a preclinical model of hemorrhage and lung injury that potato-derived 6% HES resuscitation compares favorably with crystalloid and gelatin–based fluid resuscitation in terms of variables reflecting pulmonary and renal injury. The meta-analysis of Martin et al.7  reports on the absence of renal toxicity of maize-derived HES given to 1,230 patients undergoing a variety of surgical procedures.

Available HES products differ in their mean molecular weight, molar substitution, substitution pattern, and raw material, and this information is incorporated in the nomenclature of HES given in the product information. Six percent HES 130/0.40 indicates a 6% solution of HES (iso-oncotic) with a mean molecular weight of 130 kd and a substitution ratio of 0.4 (hence the term “tetrastarch”). Older generations of HES with substitution ratios of 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 are known as penta-, hexa-, and hetastarches, respectively.8  Newer generation tetrastarches are derived from two sources. The raw material is either waxy maize starch in 6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven® or Volulyte®, Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany) or potato starch in 6% HES 130/0.42 (e.g., Venofundin® or Tetraspan®, B. Braun Melsungen, Germany; VitaHES® or Vitafusal®, Serumwerk Bernburg, Germany; PlasmaVolumeRedibag®, Baxter, Unterschleißheim, Germany), and some including Martin et al.7  believe that maize- and potato-derived 6% HES 130 are not biologically equivalent.

Potato starch—in contrast to waxy maize starch preparations—contains several thousand parts per million of esterified phosphate groups, which are located predominantly at the C6 (60–70%) and C3 positions (30–40%) of the glucose units.9  Adding more negative charges to the starch molecule affects the tertiary structure and contributes to the higher viscosity of potato-derived starch. In addition, these negative charges may contribute to the formation of inclusion complexes of amylose-containing starch preparations with endogenous lipid molecules, such as prostanoids or free fatty acids.10  To the best of our knowledge, however, we do not know at this point whether the differences in molecular structure between potato- and maize-derived starch translates into differences in efficacy and drug safety when these colloids are used in perioperative medicine.

Resuscitation involves much more than volume expansion. Indeed, one can argue that skillful resuscitation lies at the heart of the specialties of anesthesia and critical care. Fundamentally, resuscitation is the restoration of cellular perfusion and oxygenation. Therefore, an ideal resuscitation fluid would accomplish long-lasting volume expansion, while improving microcirculation in the absence of immunosuppression and toxic effects (fig. 1). In addition, we would like our fluids to be inexpensive and have a long shelf life. The potential advantages of colloids over crystalloids include more efficacious volume expansion, decreased extravascular lung water, decreased edema, and improved microcirculation. Although synthetic colloids are significantly cheaper than albumin, they have potential drawbacks, such as the risk of allergic reactions, impaired coagulation and renal function, as well as long-term retention in the reticuloendothelial system, which may differ among compounds. Third-generation of HES preparations (the tetrastarches, characterized by degrees of substitution of 0.40 and 0.42) are widely considered to be the safest of the synthetic colloids,11  although robust data to substantiate this claim are limited.12 

Fig. 1.

Goals of effective resuscitation. A star indicates potential advantages of colloids over crystalloids from a conceptional point of view. However, dedicated outcome trials need to confirm these findings in entity-based collectives of patients.

Fig. 1.

Goals of effective resuscitation. A star indicates potential advantages of colloids over crystalloids from a conceptional point of view. However, dedicated outcome trials need to confirm these findings in entity-based collectives of patients.

Close modal

The Saline versus Albumin Fluid Evaluation study showed that in most intensive care unit patients (except in those with traumatic brain injury) 4% albumin did not increase death from any cause during the 28-day period compared with normal saline.13  The Efficacy of Volume Substitution and Insulin Therapy in Severe Sepsis trial in 20084  suggested a strong association between the use of HES and renal failure and mortality in septic patients. However, it was criticized for using a less favorable HES formulation (a hyperoncotic pentastarch, 10% HES 200/0.5), as well as for using large volumes of HES, well in excess of the manufacturer’s recommendation. The recently published 6S trial was performed in response to these critiques.5  This randomized, blinded trial used moderate doses of a third-generation tetrastarch (derived from potato—6% HES 130/0.42) in patients with severe sepsis, and found that the tetrastarch was associated with worse outcomes (risk of death and risk of requiring renal replacement therapy) than crystalloid. This study, too, needs to be criticized, because the effective volume replacement effect was grossly unbalanced between groups, leading to differences in red blood cell transfusion requirements.14  It is also important to underscore that we do not understand clearly the mechanisms that underlie HES-mediated nephrotoxicity. In contrast, two small studies looking at the use of tetrastarches in trauma (the Fluids in Resuscitation of Severe Trauma study)15  and in sepsis (Effects of Voluven on Hemodynamics and Tolerability of Enteral Nutrition in Patients with Severe Sepsis study)16  failed to find any deleterious effect in terms of renal function or mortality—but they were not powered to rigorously address renal safety and mortality. In a large randomized study of waxy maize-derived tetrastarch (the Crystalloid versus Hydroxyethyl Starch trial, with an enrollment of 7,000 intensive care unit patients), the authors did not find a difference in mortality, which was the criterion the study was powered for.17  However while there was no difference in the incidence in renal failure, patients treated with HES had a higher rate of renal replacement therapy. Importantly, the authors did not find evidence of adverse outcome in the subset of patients with sepsis, although the patients in this study were less sick than in the VISEP and 6S studies. In addition, more patients who received 6% HES 130/0.4 had adverse events.17  Accordingly, although the final answer on whether or not HES should be used in critically ill patients has still not been given, considerations regarding its safety profile in these heterogeneous patients continue to be a concern, and it would seem prudent to avoid its use in patients with severe sepsis.

In a nonseptic porcine model of acute lung injury, Silva et al.1  found that goal-directed volume expansion with HES (derived from potato) was more effective at restoring circulating blood volume compared with crystalloid (the ratio of HES to crystalloid was 1: 2.7). They also found that HES preserved lung function better than crystalloid, and surprisingly, that HES was less damaging to the kidneys than gelatin, the other colloid tested. It should be noted that functional renal impairment has not been evaluated. The strengths of this study include a well-described model of lung injury and hypovolemia in a large mammal, and the relatively sophisticated endpoint (intrathoracic blood volume index) for resuscitation in hypovolemic shock. Some limitations need to be considered: their model does not incorporate infection, and the study period was limited to 4 h, which may explain the better colloid to crystalloid ratio compared with recent clinical studies.4,5,13,16  The meta-analysis by Martin et al.7  is driven by the consideration that the biological effects of the newer tetrastarches (specifically the HES derived from waxy maize) significantly differ from older-generation starches, and are less likely to be nephrotoxic when used in the perioperative setting. They included data from 17 studies showing that waxy maize-derived HES (6% HES 130/0.40) is not associated with a greater risk of renal damage (as measured by serum creatinine) compared with the fluids it was tested against in these studies in the general surgical population. Martin et al.7  point out in their discussion that unfavorable results generated using HES from potato (as in the 6S trial) may not be applicable to HES derived from waxy maize. Although the high heterogeneity (I2 = 68.5% for baseline creatinine values, and 79.8% for extreme creatinine values) may be a concern, their data support the view that waxy maize-derived HES (6% HES 130/0.40) can be safely used for treatment of blood loss in the operating room. This finding is in accordance with another recently published analysis on randomized controlled trials using tetrastarches, suggesting that the intraoperative use of modern HES preparations during surgery is not associated with postoperative renal failure.18 

The tension between supporters and detractors of the starches largely stems from the fact that the starches seem to have a very compelling physiologic rationale for their use; unfortunately, clinical studies have not only failed to conclusively demonstrate the expected benefits, but have also suggested the possibility of harm from the starches. In addition, colloids are more expensive than crystalloids.

In which patient groups should we consider the use of HES preparations? The two studies that appear in this issue support the view that the new tetrastarches are well suited to short-term resuscitation, for example, in the perioperative or preclinical period, where their demonstrated efficacy at volume expansion may be used to the patient’s benefit. However, we do not have robust data that examine the utility of HES in patients undergoing high-risk surgery, such as major vascular surgery and surgery in patients with sepsis. A study using older HES preparations in brain-dead kidney donors found evidence of increased renal dysfunction in the recipients.19  Although we cannot automatically extrapolate those findings to the newer starches, we would recommend using HES with caution in renal transplants.

Given the available data on HES during surgery and in the intensive care unit, we find ourselves still pretty much in line with the conclusions that Dr. Hogan2  came to approximately 100 yr ago, that is, resuscitation with colloids is more effective than saline to treat a hypovolemic shock, but insufficient to treat toxemic (septic) shock, despite the initial effects of colloid resuscitation on blood pressure.

1.
Latta
T
:
Saline venous injection in cases of malignant cholera, performed while in the vapour-bath.
Lancet
1832
;
19
:
173
6
2.
Hogan
JJ
:
The intravenous use of colloidal (gelatin) solutions in shock.
JAMA
1915
;
64
:
721
6
3.
Finfer
S
,
Liu
B
,
Taylor
C
,
Bellomo
R
,
Billot
L
,
Cook
D
,
Du
B
,
McArthur
C
,
Myburgh
J
;
SAFE TRIPS Investigators
:
Resuscitation fluid use in critically ill adults: An international cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units.
Crit Care
2010
;
14
:
R185
4.
Brunkhorst
FM
,
Engel
C
,
Bloos
F
,
Meier-Hellmann
A
,
Ragaller
M
,
Weiler
N
,
Moerer
O
,
Gruendling
M
,
Oppert
M
,
Grond
S
,
Olthoff
D
,
Jaschinski
U
,
John
S
,
Rossaint
R
,
Welte
T
,
Schaefer
M
,
Kern
P
,
Kuhnt
E
,
Kiehntopf
M
,
Hartog
C
,
Natanson
C
,
Loeffler
M
,
Reinhart
K
;
German Competence Network Sepsis (SepNet)
:
Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis.
N Engl J Med
2008
;
358
:
125
39
5.
Perner
A
,
Haase
N
,
Guttormsen
AB
,
Tenhunen
J
,
Klemenzson
G
,
Åneman
A
,
Madsen
KR
,
Møller
MH
,
Elkjær
JM
,
Poulsen
LM
,
Bendtsen
A
,
Winding
R
,
Steensen
M
,
Berezowicz
P
,
Søe-Jensen
P
,
Bestle
M
,
Strand
K
,
Wiis
J
,
White
JO
,
Thornberg
KJ
,
Quist
L
,
Nielsen
J
,
Andersen
LH
,
Holst
LB
,
Thormar
K
,
Kjældgaard
AL
,
Fabritius
ML
,
Mondrup
F
,
Pott
FC
,
Møller
TP
,
Winkel
P
,
Wetterslev
J
;
6S Trial Group; Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group
:
Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
367
:
124
34
6.
Silva
PL
,
Guldner
A
,
Uhlig
C
,
Carvalho
N
,
Beda
A
,
Rentzch
I
,
Kasper
M
,
Wiedemann
B
,
Spieth
PM
,
Koch
T
,
Capelozzi
VL
,
Pelosi
P
,
Rocco
PRM
,
de Abreu
MG
:
Effects of intravascular volume replacement on lung and kidney function and damage in nonseptic experimental lung injury.
Anesthesiology
2013
;
118
:
395
408
7.
Martin
C
,
Jacob
M
,
Vicaut
E
,
Guidet
B
,
Von Aken
H
,
Kurz
A
:
Effect of waxy maize-derived hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 on renal function in surgical patients.
Anesthesiology
2013
;
118
:
387
94
8.
Mizzi
A
,
Tran
T
,
Karlnoski
R
,
Anderson
A
,
Mangar
D
,
Camporesi
EM
:
Voluven, a new colloid solution.
Anesthesiol Clin
2011
;
29
:
547
55
9.
Tabata
S
,
Hizukuri
S
:
Studies on starch phosphate. Part 2. Isolation of glucose 3-phosphate and maltose phosphate by acid hydrolysis of potato starch.
Starch/Starke
1971
;
23
:
267
72
10.
Godet
MC
,
Tran
V
,
Colonna
P
,
Buleon
A
:
Inclusion/exclusion of fatty acids in amylose complexes as a function of the fatty acid chain length.
Int J Biol Macromol
1995
;
17
:
405
8
11.
Ertmer
C
,
Rehberg
S
,
Van Aken
H
,
Westphal
M
:
Relevance of non-albumin colloids in intensive care medicine.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol
2009
;
23
:
193
212
12.
Hartog
CS
,
Kohl
M
,
Reinhart
K
:
A systematic review of third-generation hydroxyethyl starch (HES 130/0.4) in resuscitation: Safety not adequately addressed.
Anesth Analg
2011
;
112
:
635
45
13.
Finfer
S
,
Bellomo
R
,
Boyce
N
,
French
J
,
Myburgh
J
,
Norton
R
;
SAFE Study Investigators
:
A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit.
N Engl J Med
2004
;
350
:
2247
56
14.
Chappell
D
,
Jacob
M
:
Protocols, physiology, and trials of hydroxyethyl starch.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
367
:
1266; author reply 1267
15.
James
MF
,
Michell
WL
,
Joubert
IA
,
Nicol
AJ
,
Navsaria
PH
,
Gillespie
RS
:
Resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch improves renal function and lactate clearance in penetrating trauma in a randomized controlled study: The FIRST trial (Fluids in Resuscitation of Severe Trauma).
Br J Anaesth
2011
;
107
:
693
702
16.
Guidet
B
,
Martinet
O
,
Boulain
T
,
Philippart
F
,
Poussel
JF
,
Maizel
J
,
Forceville
X
,
Feissel
M
,
Hasselmann
M
,
Heininger
A
,
Van Aken
H
:
Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 vs. 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis: The CRYSTMAS study.
Crit Care
2012
;
16
:
R94
17.
Myburgh
JA
,
Finfer
S
,
Bellomo
R
,
Billot
L
,
Cass
A
,
Gattas
D
,
Glass
P
,
Lipman
J
,
Liu
B
,
McArthur
C
,
McGuinness
S
,
Rajbhandari
D
,
Taylor
CB
,
Webb
SA
;
the CHEST Investigators and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group
:
Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
367
:
1901
11
18.
Van Der Linden
P
,
James
M
,
Mythen
M
,
Weiskopf
RB
:
Safety of Modern Starches Used During Surgery.
Anesth Analg
2012; DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31827175da
19.
Cittanova
ML
,
Leblanc
I
,
Legendre
C
,
Mouquet
C
,
Riou
B
,
Coriat
P
:
Effect of hydroxyethylstarch in brain-dead kidney donors on renal function in kidney-transplant recipients.
Lancet
1996
;
348
:
1620
2